Since this is economics week I thought I would introduce part of the mission statement from my upcoming web page that discusses the inherent worth of (good) art. Unlike apologetics, art is something I know a little about, so I feel like I can discuss it with some small degree of confidence. Economics is a subject area of which I have no knowledge at all, so I am able to discuss it with even greater confidence.
In my mission statement, I make these assertions about the economics of art:
"So, art of any kind is objectively useless, and fine art in particular (as opposed to, say, cinema) is an anachronism. And yet, people still seem to need it. I think many people with the least interest in it probably need it most. Art is a mystery, like music or story telling (whatever form it takes). It is part of what makes us human. When I hear people talk about increasing art instruction in schools because it will boost test scores, I cringe. When parents want to play Mozart for their infants solely because it will make them better at math, I shudder.
(… )
Art (good art) benefits people in a way that we can’t fully understand. We need art, but we don’t know why. Part of the dehumanizing aspect of the industrial revolution (IMHO) was that ordinary household objects were no longer made by hand, but were increasingly mass-produced in ways that favored ease of manufacture over aesthetics, ease of use over beauty, and cheapness over everything. I believe we have suffered because of this in a number of ways. A blank, artless existence simply is not good for the human psyche. We need beauty. When God created us, he put us not in a wilderness, but in a “garden”, a place where beauty is planned, ordered and tended."
The fact that fine art is objectively useless means that making a living by doing fine art can be a bit of a trick. Especially in times of economic downturn, fine art is rightly perceived as a luxury and takes a back seat to necessities. I do believe, though, that people need art, which is why historically wherever you find people, you find art.
And beer!
But that is for another post…
Tim,
Good post. Two questions.
1) Should taxpayers fund the arts to insure that artists are able to continue their “craft”? If an artist produces “good art”, then people will want the art and the good artist will survive. The opposite is also true. No one will want “bad art”, and thus the bad artist will not survive (as it should be). But it seems in taxpayer funded art, there is no distinction between “good” and “bad” art.
2) Is there an intrinsic difference (art-wise versus montarily) between a fine canvas painting and a poster print of the same painting? In the “cheapness over everything”, can’t I enjoy a framed poster of a painting just as much as having the very expensive original oil painting?
Let’s bring good art back into the architecture of our churches.
History proves again and again that the economic model of “good art” being rewarded by the market and “bad art” being neglected and withering isn’t true.
The story of the starving artist who only achieved fame after death seems to be very common, even for some of the great masters.
Jimmy sometimes mentions H.P. Lovecraft, who hardly eked out a living in most of his career. Meanwhile writers of less talent, who will be largely forgotten, thrived and sold many books.
Taxpayer supported art is pretty hard to discuss, since almost none of what gets produced is the sort of thing that an average person would appreciate. I personally don’t like paying for heaps of rusty coat hangers or abstract paintings consisting of a single stripe of red on yellow.
That was really well put, Tim. I’m a musician by training, and I too tend to shudder (and scoff!) at the “Mozart makes babies smart!” crowd. For Heaven’s sake, can’t we just expose our kids to beautiful music because it is beautiful?!?? Isn’t that reason enough already?
As for the why we need art question (and I’m speaking broadly here, not just fine art, but music, drama, etc.) I think it partly goes to our inherent need, as creatures, for God. In order for us to be able to even attempt to know, love and serve God, we need to be able to lift our hearts and minds above the strictly material and mundane. Good art helps us do that, even if it does not lead us to God per se. It helps us “exercise” our spiritual faculties, if you will.
If I’ve just wandered off into heresy here or something, I’m sure someone will let me know.
🙂
I wonder if people who say “Mozart makes kids smart” really mean “wise”? Of course, it’s all framed in the weird, weird language of intelligence measurement.
I know Jimmy Akin doesn’t us to make recommendations on stuff he hasn’t read, so I hope this isn’t out of line, but check out the new pope’s writings on beauty. Great stuff.
I know your questions were to Tim, Brian, but I hope you don’t mind me throwing in my .02.
“But it seems in taxpayer funded art, there is no distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ art.”
Yes. I’d even say there can’t be; especially in our *politically correct*, *eye-of-the-beholder,* *I-may-not-know-art-but-I-know-what-I-like* culture. Some stuff out there just ain’t art to me. Julian Schnabel comes to mind. Or the “artist” – I’m trying to be charitable – who put a crucifix into his own urine. (To paraphrase The Incredibles, “When everybody’s an artist, no one will be.”) It takes training, dedication & practice to create great art. Just as it does for any similar craft. A painting made by an elephant or a chimp sold to support a zoo is a novelty & sort of fun, but it’s not art. St Paul said that just as the human body has specialized parts (like hands, eyes, etc), so does the Body of Christ (apologists, theologians, artists, comtempletives, etc). I think that’s one of the reasons the Catholic Church has a long history of commissioning great works of art. The more I learn about playing guitar, the more I appreciate really talented musicians. Perhaps we should bring back art appreciation classes & expose kids to really great art – the kind Tim’s referring to, rather than allowing the gumment to fund folks who spread peanut butter on a beach ball & name it. (Yes, I’ve actually seen that.)
As for #2 . . . Yes! I think so. I really love VanGogh’s Irises, which can be seen at the Getty in Westwood. (Used to be in the Malibu facility but they moved it.) Could stare at it all day. I bought a print of it at the Getty. While I don’t get the same experience of actually viewing the original, with Vincent’s brush strokes only a foot or 2 away from my eye, I can recall that feeling & appreciate the work & my memories of being at the Getty in Malibu on the 2nd floor where the modern stuff used to be with the Munch piece of the night sky just to the left of Irises & the girl I was on a date with just around the corner. Just as pictures of the Grand Canyon are nothing like being there or looking at the beautiful Three Pairs piece Tim linked with his post (I’m sure) is nothing like seeing the original. But at least we can admire the piece & appreciate it’s beauty & it can add beauty to our day! I’m never gonna be able to afford original art, so why not have prints? Plus, it would expose kids to this art, too.
Brian-
I have another post already scheduled that begins to address the topic of taxpayer funded art. To give a short answer to both questions:
1) No. People should support the arts by buying art, seeing concerts and plays and that sort of thing, not by sending money to Washington to support art that virtually no one wants.
2) The difference between an original and an a print is that the first is (hopefully) more powerfully moving than the second. If you have ever attended a live symphony concert, you will have an inkling of what I mean. Mozart’s “Requiem” is beautiful on a CD or MP3 player, but in person it is indescribably spine tingling*. Good art is the same way. There is an immediacy and directness to the original that just doesn’t translate into print. I recently had the pleasure of viewing Thomas Moran’s “Shoshone Falls on the Snake River” at the Gilcrease Museum in Tulsa. Not only is it 11 feet wide, it is so subtly observed and painted with such nuance that a print could never begin to capture it’s power. Still, there is nothing wrong with prints and posters. I’ll definitly have prints offered on my web site.
*Interestingly, of the contemporary (non-classical) concerts I have attended, only about half measured up to the quality of the studio recordings, the rest sounded awful. The opposite is true of classical concerts. Virtually all sounded better live than recorded.
Why do we need art? I have given this a lot of thought in the development of my own artistic gifts. According to the theology of beauty we need art because it connects us to God. John Paul the Great wrote in his letter to artists that the vocation of the artist is beauty. We, as creations of the divine artist, are drawn to beauty as we are drawn to Him. God is beauty and the source of beauty, by pursuing beauty through the creation and appreciation of art we are in fact reaching out toward God. So we need art because it is a way in which we may connect with God in a very special way, as sub-creators of the Creator.
1.As for the two questions under discussion, I do not favor tax-payer supported art for the reasons already indicated. There is no distinction there between good or bad art and in fact bad art seems to have the advantage when it comes to funding.
2.Yes there is an intrinsic difference beween the ways in which you experience a work of art. But that’s just it they are different, not better or worse. For visual arts it is the image that is the important element. That is what elevates your mind to God. Certainly it is always preferable to see the work of the artist as close to his original vision as possible. But failing that it is the image or the prose or the music that is important and as long as it is conveyed to us in a way that allows us to appreciate the beauty which pervades creation then it has a value of its own.
Lawrence Klimecki
http://www.gryphonrampant.com
Art is all fine and good, but beer is indispensible.
In the filk world, we like recordings, but live music is almost always better. The recording quality gets better and better, but live music is still more real.
GK Chesterton said that “art is the signature of man.”
That is what separates us from animals.
Margaret – using the baby as an excuse as to why someone else should put on this nice classical CD then the garbage they’re listening too is one of the benefits of being a parent these days 😉
Maureen,
I’m sorry, was that “filk”?
“Filk” was originally a typo in a SF convention program. It has taken on a life of its own.
Didn’t see any major errors in this.